The website Conservapedia is making an effort to rid the bible of its well documented Liberal Bias, and i say, its about time!

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

* lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ* lack of precision in modern language* translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.

Experts in ancient languages are helpful in reducing the first type of error above, which is a vanishing source of error as scholarship advances understanding. English language linguists are helpful in reducing the second type of error, which also decreases due to an increasing vocabulary. But the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.[1]

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.

Benefits include:

* mastery of the Bible, which is priceless* mastery of the English language, which is valuable* thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version* benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses* liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds

How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the New Testament. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project.

However it has recently come under the attack of Liberal comedian Stephen Colbert!!!!111!1!!!1!

Really? I find no value in this project for Christians, but I am sure some idiot will accept this nonsense. Conservapedia is a joke. The founder and his mother are jokes too. Both have done little more than present a silly (Oedipus, anyone?) view of the world. Bad history, bad science, bad religion (not the band) is all one will find, but I am sure this will be entertaining.

At 10/9/2009 12:56:08 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:Really? I find no value in this project for Christians, but I am sure some idiot will accept this nonsense. Conservapedia is a joke. The founder and his mother are jokes too. Both have done little more than present a silly (Oedipus, anyone?) view of the world. Bad history, bad science, bad religion (not the band) is all one will find, but I am sure this will be entertaining.